1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |A New Frontier: ASBCA Issues First Ever CPAR Decision on the Merits

A New Frontier: ASBCA Issues First Ever CPAR Decision on the Merits

Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.24.19

On June 3, 2019, the ASBCA published its first ever decision addressing the merits of a CPAR evaluation – i.e., whether CPAR ratings were “fair and accurate” pursuant to FAR 42.15. In PROTEC GmbH (ASBCA Nos. 61161, 61162), the Board analyzed a CPAR’s factual assertions, compared them to the parties’ evidence of contract performance, and ultimately held that the CPAR was indeed “fair and accurate” due to the contractor’s noncompliance and poor performance. The Board also considered the contractor’s allegation of a procedural violation – i.e., that the Government failed to perform a CPAR review “at a level above the CO” as required by FAR 42.1503(d). The Board held that the contractor “lacked standing” to challenge the violation because it could not establish “prejudice,” i.e., that the CPAR rating would have been different without the violation.  

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25

From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors

Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003)....

View All Insights